Knowledge that Transforms

Tradeoffs between quality and quantity are widespread in consumer decision-making. While existing research has focused on situational and contextual factors driving choices of higher-quality or higher-quantity purchases, in the current work, we find that consumers possess generalized preferences for quality or quantity across purchase categories. Some consumers systematically prefer quality over quantity, and others systematically prefer quantity over quality. In 32 studies (N = 24,404) that use correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, and proprietary data from the Federal Reserve Bank, the current research introduces quality–quantity preferences as a novel facet of consumer decision-making. Studies 1–3 demonstrate quality–quantity preferences as an individual difference, develop the “quality-quantity tradeoffs” scale to measure it, and demonstrate that it is different from related existing constructs. Studies 4A–5 show that consumers who prefer quantity over quality spend more money, borrow more, and accrue more debt, indicating that quality–quantity preferences are consequential. Taken together, our findings underscore the importance of quality–quantity preferences as a driver of consumer behavior and pave the way for future research investigating the causes and consequences of consumers’ dispositions toward quality or quantity.

Charities often advertise the cost of a given impact (e.g., $5 provides a meal). Though often intended to demonstrate cost-effectiveness, we find that donors also use the cost as a target. Therefore, the impact cost can be too low, reducing donation amounts, or too high, deterring donors from donating altogether. We propose that, whenever donors have a reference point for a reasonable donation, the revenue-maximizing impact cost is at or just below this reference point, due to loss aversion. We examined these predictions across two online studies (N = 1,711) and one field experiment conducted within a US non-profit’s mailing appeal (N = 141,161). Study 1 demonstrates that donors target impact costs; participants report giving more when the cost of a mosquito net is higher. Study 2, the field experiment, reveals the pernicious effect of setting a target too high. Study 3 tests how the reference donation amount informs the revenue-maximizing impact cost. Supplemental studies robustly support our optimal-target recommendation, while demonstrating that cost information is ubiquitous and theoretically distinct from other types of targets. Together, these results shed light on an often-unintended side effect of providing cost information, with practical insight on how to leverage it for higher donation revenue.

We show that consumers confuse consensus information in polls—such as 90% prefer product A over product B—with differences in liking—the extent to which poll respondents like A better than B. Consequently, they interpret a 90% consensus in favor of A as the average liking of A being considerably higher than the average liking of B. We demonstrate empirically and with simulations that—while this can be true—it is more probable that the average liking of A is only slightly higher than that of B. This regularity is robust to the sign and size of the correlation between ratings for A and B, and across most distributions for A and B’s liking. Consumers are not aware of this regularity and believe that 90% consensus implies A being much better than B. Communicators (marketers, managers, public policy makers, etc.) can capitalize on these erroneous inferences and strategically display preference information as consensus or as liking ratings, leading to dramatic shifts in choices. Consumers’ erroneous inferences can be corrected by educating them about the shape of the distribution of liking differences. We discuss theoretical and managerial implications for the understanding and usage of polls.

This article takes a “then and now” perspective on social and cultural issues in the Journal of Consumer Research. The author had conversations with preeminent scholars who reflected on theoretical developments over time, what we know, and what we should be most concerned with now and in the future. This article can be used as a call to action for future consumer research dealing with society and culture.

Employing the theoretical lens of Weick’s work on sensemaking, this article explains how consumers collectively decipher and pursue their political interests. Based on historiographic data among Gaúchos in Southern Brazil, the findings detail how improvised enactments of consumer culture trigger interpretive capacities that decipher the effects of the enactments on the group and how articulation of hot conflict and cool inference interpretations politicizes such enactments. Ultimately, such socially engaged articulation informs committed interpretation, compromise, and consensus, which in turn motivate and justify subsequent enactments advancing group interests. The discussion elaborates the importance of sensemaking capacities and articulation, and the significance of committed interpretation in enabling and blocking collective compromise and consensus. This research contributes to knowledge of: (1) meso-level processes of collectively reasoned action among members of a consumer culture, (2) group structure that enhances consumers’ collective market sensemaking, and (3) particular market sensemaking challenges for consumption politics in a postcolonial context. The article closes with suggestions for further research in other forms of consumer culture in postcolonial conditions.

Scientific communities such as journals or professional societies have their own ways of creating and sharing knowledge called “epistemic cultures.” Drawing on prior reflexive scholarship and conversations with eight preeminent consumer researchers, this article explores some of the central tenets of epistemic culture at the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR): midrange scope, differential insight, meaningful impact, and multidisciplinary field. It also provides some guidance to new consumer researchers on how to accomplish epistemic fluency.

Considerable research suggests that making information simpler is better. Simplification improves the efficiency of information extraction and lowers psychological frictions, leading to its popularity with policymakers and practitioners worldwide. However, it remains unclear when and how simplification can be utilized most effectively, or if there are contexts where simplification may produce unintended maleficent effects. Using two large-scale field experiments (N = 126,673), we test whether simplifying account statements helps encourage retirement savings in Mexico. We partner with two retirement firms, one ranked high in rate of returns and the other ranked lower. We find that simplifying retirement account statements improves contribution rates for consumers in the high-ranking firm but reduces contribution rates for consumers in the low-ranking firm. Five follow-up experiments provide evidence consistent with a fluency amplification account. Simplifying information improves processing fluency, making it easier to accurately recall firm rank relative to the control, which amplifies behavior bidirectionally: High-ranking (low-ranking) firm consumers more accurately recall their firm’s rank, subsequently increasing (decreasing) contributions. However, if simplification is harnessed in ways that improve processing fluency and lower perceived switching costs, then simplification can improve retirement savings for everyone either by boosting contributions or encouraging people to switch to higher performing alternatives.

This research establishes brand corporateness as a novel brand association that most consumers find unfavorable. Exploratory focus group findings first illuminate consumer meaning structures and attitudes around brand corporateness. An inductive grounded theory approach suggests three core (hierarchical, mechanistic, opaque) and three ancillary (ubiquitous, traditional, strategic) dimensions of the construct, informing a subsequent literature review that theoretically confirms this structure. Our theorizing also suggests that greater corporateness diminishes consumers’ self-brand connection because the symbolic meanings of its core dimensions clash with several fundamental human values, a negative effect that is heightened among more politically liberal consumers. The main empirical work then develops and validates a measure of brand corporateness across 11 studies using best practices in scale development. After a rigorous item generation and refinement process, our studies provide converging evidence for the scale’s structural, nomological, discriminant, predictive, and ecological validity.

This research studies the impact of articles appearing in the top four journals for consumer research—JCR, JMR, JM, and JCP—by examining factors that influence scholarly, public, and practical impact. This conceptually distinguishes between “incongruent novelty” (novelty arising from incongruity between an article and other existing articles) and “recombinant novelty” (novelty based on drawing from more disparate references). Incongruent novelty is decomposed into two components: (1) topic incongruity—incongruity between an article's topic and other existing topics at the time and (2) article incongruity—incongruity between an article and other existing articles on the same primary topic. By integrating topic modeling and word embedding to measure these constructs, we demonstrate varying impacts of types of novelty on three types of impact. Overall, our findings illustrate that topic and article incongruity have effects above and beyond recombinant novelty. For both scholarly and public impact, our results suggest that moderately high topic incongruity has the largest influence, suggesting that researchers should address novel topics. Additionally, scholarly citations are positively affected by lower and higher (vs. moderate) levels of article incongruity, suggesting that researchers either engage in programmatic research or add a new approach to the existing research on a topic.

The term “natural” is ubiquitous in advertising and branding, but limited research has investigated how consumers respond and relate to naturalness. Some researchers have documented preferences for natural products, specifically food, but there has been scant investigation of the psychological antecedents of such preferences, especially in the critical, multi-trillion-dollar domain of healthcare. Using publicly available country-level data from 41 countries and individual-level experimental and survey data from the lab and online panels, we find converging evidence that consumers do indeed differ in their preferences for relatively natural versus artificial healthcare options. These differences are influenced by the extent to which they subscribe to the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE)—a belief system that influences judgments and behaviors across diverse domains—such that people who subscribe strongly (vs. weakly) to the PWE are more likely to prefer natural healthcare options because they are more averse to external intervention in general. Further, belief in the PWE makes consumers more sensitive to the intrusiveness of an intervention than to its extent. Theoretical and substantive implications are discussed.